From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-09-17T03:20:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Ex-Perl coders: Howz it feel to convert to Ruby?

Hi --

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Phil Tomson wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409160342510.17156-100000@wobblini>,
> David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> >Hi --
> >
> >On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, ChrisO wrote:
> >> 
> >> Yes, this is a better example of what I was talking about, and yes, you 
> >> can provide better indication here in Ruby than in Perl, I have to 
> >> admit.  So, to see the parallels, I'll bet you see a lot more of the 
> >> simple yields in block handling method definitions in classes than you 
> >> do in the form of you second example with the spiked out parameter and 
> >> the param.call approach.  It's disciplined, well constructed code, but 
> >> not everyone is like that.  Hence the Perl dilemma/diatribe here.
> >
> >There's nothing wrong with doing this the way Phil has, but there's
> >also nothing wrong or undisciplined about using yield.  Let's not
> >stigmatize people who use yield (for example, Matz and many of the
> >other authors of the Ruby standard library) as undisciplined.  It's
> >not a test of character; it's a programming idiom.  You can work
> >around it if you don't like it, as Phil has shown, or you can use it,
> >as others have shown, in the course of writing perfectly good and
> >clear code.
> 
> >
> >When you supply a block to a method, you need to know how the block is
> >going to be called -- which means you'll probably either have written
> >the method yourself, or consulted some documentation that explains how
> >the method works.  So in practical terms, the use of yield vs. calling
> >the block explicitly probably doesn't matter too much too often.  You
> >can use whichever semantics you like.  
> >
> >
> 
> I agree totally.  I did not intend to stigmatize people for using 'yield'.
> In fact, I tend to use 'yield' as often as the alternative.  I think I 
> sometimes prefer yield because even though it tends to make the arguments 
> to the method somewhat ambiguous, the intent can sometimes seem clearer in 
> the body of the method (vs the 'call').

I was referring mainly to Chris's characterization of yield users as
different from people who write disciplined, well-constructed code.  I
suspect that Chris didn't really mean it as a slam to yield users
either, but it kind of read that way.  (And I'm at least a frequent
yield user myself :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net